Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

[Eddie Sotto]

I read this a while back ... Think Michael has some interesting thoughts and would like to see him here (so many have gone away to hide in the Twitterverse echo-chambers instead of talking with a wide audience and having real discussions).

I tend to agree with some of what he says ... but also think there's too much anti-Pixar/anti-Lasseter sentiment in there. For better or worse, John is the closest thing to a Walt that Disney has now. And sure he's blinded by his own 'babies', no more so than with the Cars and TS characters.

Would I have rather seen a true tribute to California's car culture that might have featured one or two cars themed attractions or shops etc? Yeah. But nowadays Disney (and other companies) don't wait decades to see how timeless the characters are. I happen to think these will stand the test of time. But it sure would have been nice to take a ride down a REAL US Route 66 and there were so many possibilities for what you could have added in the land ... hell, you could have rethemed the wharf area and therefore Route 66 would have ended exactly where it does in the real world -- the Santa Monica Pier (in this case PP would have fit in).

True enough. We miss those conversations!

 

[choco choco]

We've been talking about breaking theming as a way to ruin the environment, but a part of me wonders, is it possible to overtheme? There's always this idea of going overboard in all the arts, a piece of music can have too much orchestration or an actor can overact to the point of caricature. Is there such a thing in a theme park, a point where an area just tries so hard to be real that it actually becomes too artificial and takes away from the immersive-ness of the environment.

For instance, what if everybody in Fantasyland started talking in "ye olde English" to match the medieval theming. Wouldn't that be going too far, like some sort of hokey Renaissance Fair? And I love Ren Fair's, but the old english is part of the joke, everybody is being cheesy together.

Or if they built a large Gothic cathedral and had a Hunchback of Notre Dame ride. I suspect even at that point people would say they're overdoing it.

Maybe Eddie can comment. Is there this idea you don't want to make things too "overthemed" because that draws attention to the fact that it is fake?

 

[djkidkaz]

We've been talking about breaking theming as a way to ruin the environment, but a part of me wonders, is it possible to overtheme? There's always this idea of going overboard in all the arts, a piece of music can have too much orchestration or an actor can overact to the point of caricature. Is there such a thing in a theme park, a point where an area just tries so hard to be real that it actually becomes too artificial and takes away from the immersive-ness of the environment.

For instance, what if everybody in Fantasyland started talking in "ye olde English" to match the medieval theming. Wouldn't that be going too far, like some sort of hokey Renaissance Fair? And I love Ren Fair's, but the old english is part of the joke, everybody is being cheesy together.

Or if they built a large Gothic cathedral and had a Hunchback of Notre Dame ride. I suspect even at that point people would say they're overdoing it.

Maybe Eddie can comment. Is there this idea you don't want to make things too "overthemed" because that draws attention to the fact that it is fake?

People always say Expedition Everest is over themed. That there is no need to spend money on real props from Nepal and stuff.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

We've been talking about breaking theming as a way to ruin the environment, but a part of me wonders, is it possible to overtheme? There's always this idea of going overboard in all the arts, a piece of music can have too much orchestration or an actor can overact to the point of caricature. Is there such a thing in a theme park, a point where an area just tries so hard to be real that it actually becomes too artificial and takes away from the immersive-ness of the environment.

For instance, what if everybody in Fantasyland started talking in "ye olde English" to match the medieval theming. Wouldn't that be going too far, like some sort of hokey Renaissance Fair? And I love Ren Fair's, but the old english is part of the joke, everybody is being cheesy together.

Or if they built a large Gothic cathedral and had a Hunchback of Notre Dame ride. I suspect even at that point people would say they're overdoing it.

Maybe Eddie can comment. Is there this idea you don't want to make things too "overthemed" because that draws attention to the fact that it is fake?

Years ago I took a course in Production Design for film at UCLA. The designer came in and explained to us that the sets you design should be drawn from the emotion of the scene and are only there in support of the actors, not overpowering them. The best sets are those that do not compete or distract, but compliment the scene. Your post reminded me of that advice.

I think something is overdone when the artifice overpowers the fun you are having or intrudes. There is the edge where the theme engages you and asks you to play along (are you to respond in "Thou and art"?), which can be a big issue as you may not want to or are not equipped to. We don't really want you to be that conscious of that. The Adventurer's Club was a place that you opt into the theme and chat with the characters or not. So I guess it can work. Probably because they are real actors that can pull it off and the script is written to ignore or include you to a degree.

The assumption is that at some point we can't pull it off and then the "edges" begin to show, as in teens trying to do cockney accents. The Jungle Cruise is kind of like that in that the Skippers end up making fun of the ride because they are not convincing at making each scene a realistic threat, or acting like they've never encountered Hippos before.

I'd like a "Westworld" level of theme and love interactive characters, so to me, if it's convincing, seamless and cool, I want more. I'm waiting for a real "Time Machine" and theme parks are as close as I can get to that, so I'm the wrong person to ask. What I think you're also saying is that it can get annoying in that people may want the theme "premise", but not be trapped in the story, having to "play along" and live in 1898, they just want to have fun.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

People always say Expedition Everest is over themed. That there is no need to spend money on real props from Nepal and stuff.

My favorite Art Director in film was John Decuir. I'm sure I've mentioned him on and off on the thread. I was moved as a kid by the NYC sets from "Hello Dolly!". He was most often accused of over designing his movies. You can over do an environment to the point where it is no longer natural feeling but the dressings become dominant and obvious, then you have defeated the purpose.

I felt this in graphic design, where every sign is so embellished you do not know what is important in a land or area. Every sign tries to be too clever, begs for attention and defeats the reality you want to create. you end up with cute confusion as no one knows the bathroom from the marquee. Every symphony has crescendos and rests.

If everything is special, nothing is special.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Ahh, good point. Another thing to consider is if the theme being broken has lost it's core appeal. If you can keep a themed area fresh and fun within it's realm, then you don't need to drop characters into it.

This gets to one of my issues with Disney and the claimed attempts to make something "relevant." If the theme is no longer working, I think it is better to kill it than to have multiple muddled themes all sitting there as some sort of confused hodgepodge.

We've been talking about breaking theming as a way to ruin the environment, but a part of me wonders, is it possible to overtheme? There's always this idea of going overboard in all the arts, a piece of music can have too much orchestration or an actor can overact to the point of caricature. Is there such a thing in a theme park, a point where an area just tries so hard to be real that it actually becomes too artificial and takes away from the immersive-ness of the environment.

For instance, what if everybody in Fantasyland started talking in "ye olde English" to match the medieval theming. Wouldn't that be going too far, like some sort of hokey Renaissance Fair? And I love Ren Fair's, but the old english is part of the joke, everybody is being cheesy together.

Or if they built a large Gothic cathedral and had a Hunchback of Notre Dame ride. I suspect even at that point people would say they're overdoing it.

Maybe Eddie can comment. Is there this idea you don't want to make things too "overthemed" because that draws attention to the fact that it is fake?

When it first opened, everybody in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at least attempted to speak in a British accent. I thought that was great because it was being done with sincerity, not to be campy.

Real manure-filled mud streets would be too much for Main Street, USA, despite being period authentic. But again, this is art, so the rules get broken to convey a the story or emotion, so the streets end up clean and paved.

 

[ChrisFL]

When it first opened, everybody in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at least attempted to speak in a British accent. I thought that was great because it was being done with sincerity, not to be campy.

Actually most of the TM's who work at WWOHP ARE British, so they weren't just playing having a british accent. Universal, like Disney has exchange programs from other countries, so they were able to populate WWOHP with actual British people!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Actually most of the TM's who work at WWOHP ARE British, so they weren't just playing having a british accent. Universal, like Disney has exchange programs from other countries, so they were able to populate WWOHP with actual British people!

Which is what made the attempted accents a bit more noticeable.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

This gets to one of my issues with Disney and the claimed attempts to make something "relevant." If the theme is no longer working, I think it is better to kill it than to have multiple muddled themes all sitting there as some sort of confused hodgepodge.


When it first opened, everybody in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at least attempted to speak in a British accent. I thought that was great because it was being done with sincerity, not to be campy.

Real manure-filled mud streets would be too much for Main Street, USA, despite being period authentic. But again, this is art, so the rules get broken to convey a the story or emotion, so the streets end up clean and paved.

As to "mud in the streets", let's be clear. Disney themed lands are romantic versions of a period or place. The amount of "authenticity" that's in the details is carefully chosen (moldings versus manure) to reinforce the fantasy that lives on top of them. So your theming overall wants to celebrate rather than replicate it's world. I agree it's better to do something well than to apply creative "band aids". I've been involved in doing that and eventually you have to go in and do more serious upgrades.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Which is what made the attempted accents a bit more noticeable.

I applaud that they wanted real Brits. It tells you that they want the close up to be as good as the rest. The Cast makes the show.

 

[Vernonpush]

As to "mud in the streets", let's be clear. Disney themed lands are romantic versions of a period or place. The amount of "authenticity" that's in the details is carefully chosen (moldings versus manure) to reinforce the fantasy that lives on top of them. So your theming overall wants to celebrate rather than replicate it's world. I agree it's better to do something well than to apply creative "band aids". I've been involved in doing that and eventually you have to go in and do more serious upgrades.

So, what is your view of Expedition Everest (with /without as of late "Disco Lighting")?

 

[Captain Neo]

I guess I'd be pretty depressed if I was an Imagineer and working on the Cars thing. You kill yourself to make it that good and then it's still not enough for some of the purists. That being said, I'm enjoying all of the points of view in the discussion as I like knowing why something appeals or doesn't. Crawford's article was interesting as he was questioning his own feelings as to why he wasn't going nuts over it.

I think guests will enjoy it, but you can't know till you experience it in person. Guests may even find that the reflective quality of all that tall concrete will create a blistering microclimate and it's own appropriate desert heat! Toontown bakes you that way because of all it's surfaces and the retention of heat.

I think the only issue the fans have with Cars is that we have seen so many toon tie-ins in the past decade that everyone is alittle toon'd out. That said I consider myself a purist but am interested in Carsland. I hope the ride is on the caliber of Indiana Jones Adventure (if not BETTER) and offers some thrills for the adult crowd.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So, what is your view of Expedition Everest (with /without as of late "Disco Lighting")?

I rode it the year it opened and it was fun. The Yeti was running back then. The queue was very rich looking and exotic. Felt authentic. The ride as I recall was really fun, but thinking back, it felt like a bit of a mega coaster with the theme conforming to it. The tough thing about using long coaster trains is that the turning radius is really large and the show has to conform to those proportions, versus using a Toboggan type vehicle. The Matterhorn for example, has the ability to "knit" it's way through the mountain in and out of caves, etc. and EE had to take broader strokes which to me made it feel a bit generic in the ride feel department. Of course, EE has much more in the thrill department. I enjoyed it.

As to the overdone aspect, the queue does promise alot. DL's Indy has the same issue in that some like the queue more than the actual ride! I was not really critiquing as I was with a friend and just having fun, and I did. Wish I could recall more of it to give you a better sense.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Even with Disco Yeti, EE is one of my favorite attractions in all of WDW. Amazing theming, feels like total immersion.

 

[Jeanine]

I remember reading once that in writing fiction, the writer had to be careful of requiring too many levels of disbelief suspension--that you could have space travel, and people would go along with that, or magic, and people would go along with that, but having magical space travel would be more than some people could swallow.

When we think of the different lands in DL, it seems as though they are intended to transport you to a different place, but usually on one axis--either space, like NOS, or time, like Frontierland, or reality, like Fantasyland. Could one of the problems with Carsland be that it's trying to be convincing on too many levels? That the reality of the rock-work and the Route 66 detailing in some way works against the cartoon inhabitants? Maybe part of the problem is reconciling the notion of being in a real place with unreal characters.

Although I'm not the hugest Cars fan ever, I'm looking forward to seeing the new land, and will be hoping for the "wow..."

 

[jjharvpro]

Mr. Sotto,

I would love to hear your opinion in two different upcoming WDW expansions.

1. What do you think of New Fantasyland? Good potential, good step forward, etc.?

2. Did Disney make a good choice on making the deal with Cameron to bring Avatar to the Parks? Do you think this will work?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I remember reading once that in writing fiction, the writer had to be careful of requiring too many levels of disbelief suspension--that you could have space travel, and people would go along with that, or magic, and people would go along with that, but having magical space travel would be more than some people could swallow.

Although I'm not the hugest Cars fan ever, I'm looking forward to seeing the new land, and will be hoping for the "wow..."

I think I read that too. It makes sense. Like a joke on a joke. I think it's true with food too. You can get people to try Chicken with Whisky Sauce, but not Eggplant Chicken with Whisky Sauce.

 

[celluloid]

When we think of the different lands in DL, it seems as though they are intended to transport you to a different place, but usually on one axis--either space, like NOS, or time, like Frontierland, or reality, like Fantasyland. Could one of the problems with Carsland be that it's trying to be convincing on too many levels? That the reality of the rock-work and the Route 66 detailing in some way works against the cartoon inhabitants? Maybe part of the problem is reconciling the notion of being in a real place with unreal characters.

Although I'm not the hugest Cars fan ever, I'm looking forward to seeing the new land, and will be hoping for the "wow..."

I understand this point(s) but to be fair I think that is a limiting way to look at things. Great execution is great execution. For example, Splash Mountain blows this theory apart as does The Haunted Mansion. Splash Mountain you have a Fantasy cartoon world clashing with a Frontier time period. With The Haunted Mansion you have a time period going in with the supernatural element of the old mansion.

That being said it may work differently in the parks because once we are in the land or area we are on the stage and that is already one level of belief suspended. Sorry, just wanted to add my two cents.

I do however agree with the Carsland part maybe being too much of a character only based world, for there are no humans in that world. In this land in the main attraction we are supposed to be a car. Cars are personified. It is a little weird to 'be a motor vehicle' in this realm. I think that is what is strange when bringing the movies of Cars to life. You are not changing the setting the person is in, but changing the person itself to an extreme.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I understand this point(s) but to be fair I think that is a limiting way to look at things. Great execution is great execution. For example, Splash Mountain blows this theory apart as does The Haunted Mansion. Splash Mountain you have a Fantasy cartoon world clashing with a Frontier time period. With The Haunted Mansion you have a time period going in with the supernatural element of the old mansion.

That being said it may work differently in the parks because once we are in the land or area we are on the stage and that is already one level of belief suspended. Sorry, just wanted to add my two cents.

I do however agree with the Carsland part maybe being too much of a character only based world, for there are no humans in that world. In this land in the main attraction we are supposed to be a car. Cars are personified. It is a little weird to 'be a motor vehicle' in this realm. I think that is what is strange when bringing the movies of Cars to life. You are not changing the setting the person is in, but changing the person itself to an extreme.

Interesting points all. It IS in the execution, and in fact, most Disney ideas are not revolutionary, they are simple. The execution is what elevates it. "Haunted House" attractions have been around for years, but there is only one Haunted Mansion. BTM is not an elaborate idea, but the ride is lavish. I think we were discussing trying to do too much and confusing the guest.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that Carsland will be a "wow" in that it's so immersive with that desert environment. While it's true that a theme devoid of humans is limiting, I don't think people will consciously dwell on it. You have the CM's and other guests to fill in that static gap. Bear Country was onlyBear and I never thought anything of it as they were humanized. Maybe the same will be true with Cars. I know it's weird. I do think all that concrete may make it oppressively hot. Toontown is punishing in summer and it has half the mass.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Mr. Sotto,

I would love to hear your opinion in two different upcoming WDW expansions.

1. What do you think of New Fantasyland? Good potential, good step forward, etc.?

2. Did Disney make a good choice on making the deal with Cameron to bring Avatar to the Parks? Do you think this will work?

1. I'd say yes, they needed to do something as the MK was very stale. They are replacing things that were temporary, so good call. Creatively I look for something more as they are Disney, but it's all in the execution. I don't care for the notion of 2 Dumbos, sounds like it is driven by guest surveys rather than a vision.
Compared to Harry Potter you tend to want a "Super E" for the park, but it's still good that they are doing something. High hopes for the Dwarf Coaster.

2. I would not have done it (I was not a fan of the film so I'm biased). BTW what do I know?. My concern is how you would execute "Pandora" in a way that will exceed guest expectation. If it's a 3D film ride, then it's not breaking new ground and if it's a built world, then it could end up being blue fiberglas and fiber optics. I just wonder if it has any heart to it. Kind of depends on the next two films he does, who knows? It's a pretty world and that may be all it needs but I'm not excited at all. "Peter Pan" tells me I get to Fly, what does Avatar tell me? Again, they can do it over the top great, or blow it. (I'd rather be in the world of TRON or John Carter.)